Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 1450 - United States v. Andersson

United States v. Andersson’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 1450 · 1987

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
8
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

105 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably United States v. Sanchez-Lopez (1989), United States v. Sangineto-Miranda (1988)

105 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

86019871990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Bagley · Chimel v. California · Rakas v. Illinois · Ohio v. Roberts

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “'[A] police officer may, incident to a lawful arrest, conduct a contemporaneous warrantless search of the arrestee's person and of the area into which the arrestee might reach to retrieve a weapon or destroy evidence.... Containers found within that area may also be searched contemporaneously with the arrest.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the agents could search both [the defendant] and the immediate area, including containers, as a search incident to arrest, as long as the search of the suitcase occurred at about the same time as the arrest”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.